|
This is the official newsletter of the National Institute for Civil Discourse Volume 1 Issue 2, October 27, 2011.
http://nicd.arizona.edu/
|
|
|
Greetings!
We welcome you to the second edition of "Frankly Speaking," the official newsletter of the National Institute for Civil Discourse! We are a national, nonpartisan center for debate, research, education and policy generation.
Visit http://nicd.arizona.edu/node/2 for more information.
|
|
**In each newsletter, a member of our National Board shares their personal view about the importance of civil discourse. In our last newsletter, Greta Van Susteren offered her perspective and this month we welcome Robert Reich.
Civil Discourse and America's Future
By Robert B. Reich
Not long ago I had a televised debate with a conservative Republican that was going rather well. We made our points respectfully, found areas where we agreed, and began to discover the sources of our disagreements. But during the station break the producer asked me to "be angrier." I asked why. "Because viewers surf through hundreds of channels and stop when they see a good fight," she explained. I told her I didn't want to be angrier, that I was enjoying the exchange and I thought viewers were enjoying it as well. She insisted on more anger. At that point I lost my temper - not at my debating partner but at the producer.
Sociologists will tell you that in times of large-scale economic stress, a public can become so anxious, fearful, and hostile that it seeks out leaders who express the anger on their behalf. It also entices the media to mirror their anger, turning what would otherwise be civil discussions into public brawls. People stop listening to one another and no longer engage in constructive collective action; instead, they begin blaming others and seeking scapegoats. This process can turn into a vicious cycle, because it doesn't lead to any real solutions. It just makes matters worse. Sadly, world history provides ample evidence.
America's current economic stresses are particularly dangerous when combined with an increasingly polarized politics, the increasing power of narrow interest groups, the wholesale rejection by some political leaders of science and evidence, a congress whose approval hovers at barely 13 percent, and - most distressingly - a public discourse more prone to anger than reason. Under these circumstances it's difficult if not impossible to make progress on any of our pressing problems - whether joblessness, the mounting federal debt, the environment, poverty, widening inequality, foreign policy, or immigration.
Civil discourse is the cornerstone of our democracy. With it, we can accomplish almost anything. That's been our history. Through some of the most difficult times imaginable - two world wars, a great depression, the Cold War, the struggle over civil rights, the tragedy of Vietnam -- Americans have rolled up our sleeves and got on with solving the problems at hand. We don't always do so immediately but we get there eventually. As Winston Churchill reportedly said, "Americans always make the right decision, after they've exhausted all other possibilities."
I've promised myself not to get involved in any shouting matches on the media, but that's not all. All of us have an obligation to restore civil discourse in America in every manner we can. Our great strength has been our pragmatism - our capacity to put ideology and prejudice aside, to stop shouting at one another and begin listening, substitute thought for anger. We must draw upon that strength once again.
|
|
Executive Session: Civil Discourse in Progress
By Carli Brosseau
 A call to action and an array of specific and actionable ideas for advancing American discourse came out of the executive session held by the National Institute for Civil Discourse on September 28.
National leaders from the media, political strategists, organizational consultants, charitable foundations, nonprofit advocacy groups and academia gathered at the United States Supreme Court to discuss the state of civil discourse in America and what to do about it. It was an example of civil discourse at its best.
The discussion made clear that education and changes in the incentive structure for politicians and the media were key ingredients to increasing civility. Participants also agreed that changes in political structures and increased visibility of examples of civil discourse were important.
In the recommendations for paths to change, the Institute's role as a hub for collaboration and mobilization was reaffirmed. Several participants expressed enthusiasm for the Institute's activities and made an early commitment to future initiatives.
The conversation started with a definition of civil discourse: "robust, honest, frank and constructive dialogue and deliberation that seeks to advance the public interest." Participants emphasized that civil discourse was not to be mistaken for abridgement of the First Amendment, the silencing of certain views or a commitment to political moderation or exclusively consensus views.
 | | Left to right: Katie Couric, Joe Kalt, Keith Allred, David Mathews and Donna Brazile. |
Rather, civil discourse is founded upon willingness by each party to explain one's views and reasons and a commitment to listen carefully to other party's reasons and views. Repeatedly challenging the basic legitimacy of the other party undermines civility and the trust underpinning negotiation.
Participants characterized current discourse as marked by increased incivility and a correlated decline in legislative productivity. One participant described a shift from politicians working from a shared set of facts to the emergence of partisan facts that share no common ground: "...we have a red truth and a blue truth and social media that perpetuates that."
At the same time, participants agreed, people are losing faith in institutions generally. A recent Pew Research Center poll shows that 87 percent of Americans are frustrated or angry with the federal government and only one-quarter have confidence in government leaders doing the right thing.
Shame and reprimand were identified as potential avenues toward change. Participants emphasized the importance of leaders in politics and the media challenging incivility when it arises, especially among one's fellow political partisans.
On the other side of the coin, participants recommended recognizing civil discourse when it happens. Publicity campaigns involving high-profile spokespeople, profiles and awards were among the suggestions.
Several participants described civility as a function of culture, not politics alone. To address that, participants suggested education models inspired by the anti-smoking campaign. Greater emphasis on civic education in schools, with opportunities to practice rule-governed discourse, was urged. Methods for increasing inter-party socialization were also discussed, as well as changes to the primary system, redistricting and campaign reform.
The Institute was pleased that the meeting not only provided an opportunity for serious discussion, but also built new relationships among participants and commitment to the cause. Several of the recommendations generated by the discussion are under consideration.
|
|
|
Inside the Institute:
UA Faculty Forum
On September 8, the National Institute for Civil Discourse held a research forum which brought together faculty members and graduate students from the University of Arizona whose fields of study are related to the goals of the Institute. Institute Director Brint Milward gave an overview of the Institute's latest endeavors and Research Director Robin Stryker presented the Institute's research goals, including the desire to unite the various civil discourse research projects around the country. By improving the communication between various disciplines (e.g. political science and communications), Stryker hopes to strengthen the overall body of research by allowing the different groups to build upon each other's findings.
Stryker also discussed a number of research briefs that have emerged from a comprehensive literature review conducted this summer. Each of the briefs is organized around key questions for a specific topic such as Civil Discourse Online or Political Polarization.
For more information on the briefs click here. In response to a question about the Institute's Seed Grant Program, which makes awards for innovative research with potential to attract additional extramural funding, Stryker confirmed that these grants will be made on at least an annual basis. This summer's recipients include Norma Mendoza-Denton, Kate Kenski, Kevin Coe, and Steve Rains. Denton-Mendoza's research will focus on "Citizen Rage: Representative-Constituent Face Threatening Interactions in Town Hall Meetings," and Kenski, Coe and Rains' research will focus on "Patterns and Determinants of Civility in Online Discussions." For more detail on the the grant recipients research click here. |
|
Civil Champions:
Finley Family Foundation
The Finley Family Foundation was one of the National Institute for Civil Discourse's early donors. They are continuing their tradition of giving back to the Arizona community that started with Harold and Dorothy Finley. John Finley is a native Tucsonan and Audrey Finley moved to Tucson as a child. They chose to donate to the Institute because of their friendship with Rep. Gabby Giffords, which predates her political career. They hoped that through their grant to the Institute, given in Rep. Gifford's name, they would support her ongoing quest to change the political tone.
The Finley's hope the Institute will be able to call attention to the rise of incivility throughout our communities and nation and bring together both sides to find a solution. John Finley said, "We believe incivility starts with the leaders of our country. To watch the often incoherent, rude and hate speech that passes as normal discourse between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans sets the tone and mood for the country. This must change!"
Their grant went to fund the research grants given out this summer to Norma Mendoza-Denton, Kate Kenski, Kevin Coe and Steve Rains. For more information on the research and the recipients, refer to the Faculty Forum article.
The Finleys are one of the many supporters and donors that enable the Institute to further affect research and policy concerning civility in today's society.
|
|
Facing Facts:
Compromise in Congress
Congress was designed to prevent Senators and Representatives from making hasty decisions, but the recent polarization has added another wrench in the legislation process. A series of Gallup polls have been tracking Americans' views on the government. The most recent poll was conducted over three days, Sept 8-11, and showed that 31% of Americans favor compromise in Congress over politicians who stick to their beliefs. The poll then breaks down how people from various parties and ideologies voted.
For more information on the Gallup poll results, click here.
|
Speak Out Survey:
Let Your Voice Be Heard
Our last survey asked how people defined civility. 78% responded "respectful."
The Executive Session discussed many ideas on how to improve civility. For more detail refer to the Executive Session article above. Please rank the following recommendations according to what you think is the most important (6) and what is the least important (1).
- Changes in the incentive structure to make politicians and the media more civil.
- Increase visibility of examples of civil discourse.
- Emphasize the importance of political and media leaders challenging incivility when it arises.
- Greater emphasis on civic education in schools with with opportunities to practice rule-governed discourse
- Increase inter-party socialization.
- Changes to the primary system, redistricting and campaign reform.
To record your answer, click here.
|
|
|
Civil Calendar
Upcoming Events!
- Congress to Campus Nov. 13-15
|
Congress to Campus
On Sunday November 13, former Representatives David Skaggs (D. CO) and John Porter (R. IL) will be at the Scottish Rite Temple in Tucson Arizona from 5:30 to 6:30 discussing the Common Ground Project. For more information on the project, click here.
To request an invitation, please email [email protected].
|
|
Civility Matters:
Arizona Convening
On August 23, The National Institute for Civil Discourse convened a meeting that brought together Arizona organizations that are committed to advancing civil discourse and public engagement. The Institute wishes to express its sincere appreciation to the Flinn Foundation for generously hosting the convening in their Phoenix facilities.
Institute Director Brint Milward presented a network analysis of the participating organizations to identify new opportunities for collaboration. This analysis provided a baseline of current types of collaborations, which included funding, joint projects, and information sharing. Interestingly, one area where collaboration was less robust was in the area of strategic planning.
Organization representatives then discussed the current state of civil discourse in Arizona and how it can be improved. A Convening Report was generated with specific recommendations. Many participants agreed it would be beneficial to continue the dialogue which would allow for more joint planning. Project Civil Disc ourse, a program of the Arizona Humanities Council, graciously offered to provide the platform for this continued communication. For more information on Project Civil Discourse, click here to go to their website. Anyone interested in becoming involved can contact Erica Kinias at [email protected].
Organizations represented included:
* Arizona Center for Civic Leadership,
* Arizona Foundation for Legal Services and Education,
* Arizona Humanities Council,
* Arizona Interfaith Network and Valley Interfaith Project,
* Arizona Town Hall,
* Center for Civic Participation,
* Center for the Future of Arizona,
* Fund for Civility, Respect and Understanding,
* IAP2 Grand Canyon Chapter,
* Hugh Downs School of Human Communication at ASU,
* League of Women Voters,
* O'Connor House Project,
* Southwest Arizona Futures Forum,
* TheRightToBeHeard.org,
* ThinkingArizona.com,
* Tucsonans for Civility,
* Udall Foundation.
One participant, Richard Gilman, has captured his impressions from the day click here.
|
|
Meet the Board:
Bruce Meyerson
Working Board member Bruce Meyerson is a mediator, arbitrator and facilitator in Phoenix, Arizona. He received his JD in 1972 from Georgetown University Law Center after graduating from Arizona State University and serving as a VISTA volunteer. He has had a distinguished career not only as a lawyer and judge, but also as a local and national leader in the field of conflict resolution.
Meyerson has served as the founding Executive Director of the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, a Judge on the Arizona Court of Appeals, and General Counsel of Arizona State University. He is an Adjunct Professor at the Arizona State University College of Law where he teaches courses in mediation and arbitration.
A recognized expert in the field of conflict resolution, Meyerson has served in many leadership roles including Chair of the American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolution; State Bar of Arizona Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution; and the Arizona Supreme Court ADR Advisory Committee. He was one of the first lawyer members to serve on the Ninth Circuit Committee of Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs.
As a member of the Board of the Arizona Humanities Council, his efforts led to the creation of Project Civil Discourse, an affiliation of over 20 organizations throughout Arizona, dedicated to creating "a respectful dialogue and discourse on public issues."
Meyerson is excited about the vision of the National Institute. "The challenges facing our country can only be solved by thoughtful, respectful discussion. Although the work of the Institute will not be easy, success in working to change the culture of conflict that has consumed our politics is essential. There is no worthier cause."
|
|
|
Civility in the Press
On October 11, The Christian Science Monitor published an article online titled, "Vinegar of Politics Needs Honey of Civility." The article is by the Monitor's Editorial Board and discusses how the lack of civility is attracting more attention by organizations and individuals alike. Provided is an excerpt from the article. To read further, click here.
"As the race for president heats up, so, too, do the words of candidates and their supporters. The latest extreme examples? A Dallas pastor who is a Rick Perry supporter denies Mitt Romney is a Christian while labor leader Jame Hoffa threateningly calls on Democrats to "take out" Republicans.
Fortunately, this kind of incivility - the rudeness, personal attacks, and prejudice - is attracting more attention. Researchers, pollsters, and others are studying the effects of vitriolic rhetoric on democracy and looking for ways to promote civility in society."
|
|
The Last (Civil) Word...
A Closing Note From Our Director Brint Milward
Calling Foul
 | | Director Brint Milward. |
Since the National Institute for Civil Discourse was founded in February, we have received heated emails almost daily telling us about the outrages committed by partisans on the left or right. Some are "ripped from the headlines" and others are more obscure. Most of the authors of the emails tell us in no uncertain terms that if we don't denounce the outrage we are spineless and a front for the other side. We take this very seriously and our Board and staff struggle with our position on how to deal with individual "fouls".
Our position has been to advocate for civil discourse because we believe that it produces better policy and better governance than a scorched earth politics that may create temporary majorities. As every student of the Constitution knows, ours is a system with multiple veto points that makes it very difficult for temporary majorities to prevail for very long. Thus, if complex, contentious problems are to be addressed, at some point politicians have to negotiate with their opponents. Whether it is a debt crisis or reforming welfare, negotiation with the opposition requires a measure of trust that, whatever political differences exist between the parties, opponents can become allies on certain issues.
Aside from our role as an advocate for the kind of political discourse we would like to see, there is a danger to playing the role of referee in the contact sport of politics. Many of the perceived instances of incivility and outrageous political behavior don't turn out to be clear cut. A horrible slur on cable news today becomes something totally benign when the whole speech is heard rather than just a sound bite. Calling a foul that is wrong is stupid and calling one when the dust settles is irrelevant. So, while we struggle with outrageous statements and what our position should be, it isn't clear what we can accomplish to make American political life more civil if we referee a continuous food fight.
How can the National Institute for Civil Discourse be relevant if we don't take stands on what is right or wrong? No Labels allows its members to "call the lines" by voting. Factcheck.org tries to keep politicians honest by pointing out whether their claims are true or false. We have considered trying to create a US News style ranking system of candidate civility. Much of life consists of struggling with dilemmas; we will continue to struggle with how the Institute might play a role in monitoring incivility without it consuming us in an endless news cycle. If our readers have any ideas about how we should balance this, they would be more than welcome.
|
|
|
Choose Civility
We would like to add you to the mailing list for this newsletter and other possible important notices such as national events and surveys.
Join Our Mailing List!
|
|
|
|
|
